The Great Marco Antonio Barrera - when was his prime?

[Violent Demise]

To be sure, when we are talking prime, are we talking about physical or fight prime? Because clearly they are both very different.

For example, since people have mentioned Hopkins, the 28 year old Hopkins that lost to RJJ was in his physical prime but the 36 year old Hopkins against Trinidad was the better fighter overall. Or take Pac as an example, the 25 year old one was physically in his prime but the 30 year old one is much better overall.

So which prime are we talking about? Fight prime or physical prime?

This is like the definition of elite, different meanings to different people.

Prime means best otherwise it's nonsense. It's pointless bringing it up.

Everyone is physically stronger/faster at a certain age. It doesn't mean you have reached your full potential.

In boxing prime is only used in this context - "He was past his prime (best)." "He was yet to reach his prime (best)." "He was at his prime (best)."

That's it.

I was right. You don't know the meaning of the word. Prime means he's at his physical best. He's able to do everything to his fullest capabilities. Once he can't than he's no longer in his prime. It doesn't mean he still can't be a great fighter. A good example would be Bernard Hopkins. Only a moron wold say Hopkins was in his prime when he beat Antonio Tarver and schooled Kelly Pavlik. He was about 8 years out his prime when he fought Pavlik. Nobody considered George Foreman to be in his prime when he KO'ed Michael Moorer. His prime was when he smashed Joe Frazier. Despite the fact he might of been a better fighter when he made his comeback it's idiotic to say he was in his prime. A 40 year old fighter can't be in his prime. Cuz he can't do things as good as he once did. If at all. Going into the Hamed fight Barrera had been in 55 career fights. Included in those fights were the Kennedy Mckinney war, the Junior Jones wars and the Erik Morales war. Those fights took a toll. Barrera lost a little something. It's why he adjusted his style. He had to compensate for it. He was no longer in his prime. And he knew it. Everybody that knows the sport knows it. Cuz it's really not that hard to understand. The fact that your struggling to grasp it really doesn't surprise me.

[Fenster]

To be sure, when we are talking prime, are we talking about physical or fight prime? Because clearly they are both very different.

For example, since people have mentioned Hopkins, the 28 year old Hopkins that lost to RJJ was in his physical prime but the 36 year old Hopkins against Trinidad was the better fighter overall. Or take Pac as an example, the 25 year old one was physically in his prime but the 30 year old one is much better overall.

So which prime are we talking about? Fight prime or physical prime?

This is like the definition of elite, different meanings to different people.

Prime means best otherwise it's nonsense. It's pointless bringing it up.

Everyone is physically stronger/faster at a certain age. It doesn't mean you have reached your full potential.

In boxing prime is only used in this context - "He was past his prime (best)." "He was yet to reach his prime (best)." "He was at his prime (best)."

That's it.

I was right. You don't know the meaning of the word. Prime means he's at his physical best. He's able to do everything to his fullest capabilities. Once he can't than he's no longer in his prime. It doesn't mean he still can't be a great fighter. A good example would be Bernard Hopkins. Only a moron wold say Hopkins was in his prime when he beat Antonio Tarver and schooled Kelly Pavlik. He was about 8 years out his prime when he fought Pavlik. Nobody considered George Foreman to be in his prime when he KO'ed Michael Moorer. His prime was when he smashed Joe Frazier. Despite the fact he might of been a better fighter when he made his comeback it's idiotic to say he was in his prime. A 40 year old fighter can't be in his prime. Cuz he can't do things as good as he once did. If at all. Going into the Hamed fight Barrera had been in 55 career fights. Included in those fights were the Kennedy Mckinney war, the Junior Jones wars and the Erik Morales war. Those fights took a toll. Barrera lost a little something. It's why he adjusted his style. He had to compensate for it. He was no longer in his prime. And he knew it. Everybody that knows the sport knows it. Cuz it's really not that hard to understand. The fact that your struggling to grasp it really doesn't surprise me.

These examples are utterly pitiful.

George Foreman was 45 when he fought Moorer. He had previously spent TEN years RETIRED. He was obviously light-years past his pomp.

Bernard Hopkins was 41 when he fought Tarver. He was coming off back-to-back losses at middleweight after going 10 years unbeaten at the weight.

Barrera was 26 when he fought Morales. After arguably his greatest ever performance, he fought a further THREE times that year before going on to record his most famous wins.

Can you see the difference?

It is utterly pointless to even mention "prime" unless you are referring to a fighters absolute best. Just because you're a little stronger/faster doesn't make you the complete package.

Would the Barrera of 2000 onwards have been hit with a million right-hands from Junior Jones? Of course not. He had learnt from his mistakes and developed into a superior fighter. He would have schooled Poison.

Your argument is this - a younger slightly stronger Barrera is better than the finished article. Complete nonsesne. Fact.

[ICB]

To be sure, when we are talking prime, are we talking about physical or fight prime? Because clearly they are both very different.

For example, since people have mentioned Hopkins, the 28 year old Hopkins that lost to RJJ was in his physical prime but the 36 year old Hopkins against Trinidad was the better fighter overall. Or take Pac as an example, the 25 year old one was physically in his prime but the 30 year old one is much better overall.

So which prime are we talking about? Fight prime or physical prime?

This is like the definition of elite, different meanings to different people.

Prime means best otherwise it's nonsense. It's pointless bringing it up.

Everyone is physically stronger/faster at a certain age. It doesn't mean you have reached your full potential.

In boxing prime is only used in this context - "He was past his prime (best)." "He was yet to reach his prime (best)." "He was at his prime (best)."

That's it.

I was right. You don't know the meaning of the word. Prime means he's at his physical best. He's able to do everything to his fullest capabilities. Once he can't than he's no longer in his prime. It doesn't mean he still can't be a great fighter. A good example would be Bernard Hopkins. Only a moron wold say Hopkins was in his prime when he beat Antonio Tarver and schooled Kelly Pavlik. He was about 8 years out his prime when he fought Pavlik. Nobody considered George Foreman to be in his prime when he KO'ed Michael Moorer. His prime was when he smashed Joe Frazier. Despite the fact he might of been a better fighter when he made his comeback it's idiotic to say he was in his prime. A 40 year old fighter can't be in his prime. Cuz he can't do things as good as he once did. If at all. Going into the Hamed fight Barrera had been in 55 career fights. Included in those fights were the Kennedy Mckinney war, the Junior Jones wars and the Erik Morales war. Those fights took a toll. Barrera lost a little something. It's why he adjusted his style. He had to compensate for it. He was no longer in his prime. And he knew it. Everybody that knows the sport knows it. Cuz it's really not that hard to understand. The fact that your struggling to grasp it really doesn't surprise me.

These examples are utterly pitiful.

George Foreman was 45 when he fought Moorer. He had previously spent TEN years RETIRED. He was obviously light-years past his pomp.

Bernard Hopkins was 41 when he fought Tarver. He was coming off back-to-back losses at middleweight after going 10 years unbeaten at the weight.

Barrera was 26 when he fought Morales. After arguably his greatest ever performance, he fought a further THREE times that year before going on to record his most famous wins.

Can you see the difference?

It is utterly pointless to even mention "prime" unless you are referring to a fighters absolute best. Just because you're a little stronger/faster doesn't make you the complete package.

Would the Barrera of 2000 onwards have been hit with a million right-hands from Junior Jones? Of course not. He had learnt from his mistakes and developed into a superior fighter. He would have schooled Poison.

Your argument is this - a younger slightly stronger Barrera is better than the finished article. Complete nonsesne. Fact.

Sorry Fenster but MAB wouldn't of schooled Junior Jones at any point in his career, MAB tried to box cautiously against Junior Jones in there 2nd fight and he still lost.

It wasn't just his right hand it was his piston like jab, that gave MAB alot of problems aswell.

Just because Junior Jones lost to lesser fighters, because he was inconsistent. And sometimes his chin let him down, doesn't mean anything.

Styles makes fights and MAB never did fight another fighter, like Junior Jones. I just don't think he could of ever have beaten Junior Jones at his best.

Especially the Junior Jones who outpointed Orlando Canizales by 8 rounds to 4.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

you know his hand was broke in the 2nd fight.

[ICB]

you know his hand was broke in the 2nd fight.

Nah i didn't but i thought he fought a pretty good fight, it was more like the MAB who fought Naseem Hamed. Its just Junior Jones has the height and reach advantages. And his jab was giving MAB problems just as much as his right hand.

And in all honesty i've seen an unmotivated Junior Jones, get KO'ed and ETC. But i don't think i've ever really seen him get outboxed.

I don't think people realize how good of a boxer he was, and i think people just believe it was fluke against MAB because he had just the right style.

But he totally outboxed a great boxer in Orlando Canizales, sure Orlando Canizales was past his prime but he still beat him 8 rounds to 4, and i've never seen Orlando Canizales beaten that widely and infact Orlando Canizales fights a bit like MAB.

I just think Junior Jones at his best has the right style for any version of MAB, i mean how many times have we seen it through history. Ali/Norton Mayorga/Forrest Forrest/Mosley ETC.

[Fenster]

To be sure, when we are talking prime, are we talking about physical or fight prime? Because clearly they are both very different.

For example, since people have mentioned Hopkins, the 28 year old Hopkins that lost to RJJ was in his physical prime but the 36 year old Hopkins against Trinidad was the better fighter overall. Or take Pac as an example, the 25 year old one was physically in his prime but the 30 year old one is much better overall.

So which prime are we talking about? Fight prime or physical prime?

This is like the definition of elite, different meanings to different people.

Prime means best otherwise it's nonsense. It's pointless bringing it up.

Everyone is physically stronger/faster at a certain age. It doesn't mean you have reached your full potential.

In boxing prime is only used in this context - "He was past his prime (best)." "He was yet to reach his prime (best)." "He was at his prime (best)."

That's it.

I was right. You don't know the meaning of the word. Prime means he's at his physical best. He's able to do everything to his fullest capabilities. Once he can't than he's no longer in his prime. It doesn't mean he still can't be a great fighter. A good example would be Bernard Hopkins. Only a moron wold say Hopkins was in his prime when he beat Antonio Tarver and schooled Kelly Pavlik. He was about 8 years out his prime when he fought Pavlik. Nobody considered George Foreman to be in his prime when he KO'ed Michael Moorer. His prime was when he smashed Joe Frazier. Despite the fact he might of been a better fighter when he made his comeback it's idiotic to say he was in his prime. A 40 year old fighter can't be in his prime. Cuz he can't do things as good as he once did. If at all. Going into the Hamed fight Barrera had been in 55 career fights. Included in those fights were the Kennedy Mckinney war, the Junior Jones wars and the Erik Morales war. Those fights took a toll. Barrera lost a little something. It's why he adjusted his style. He had to compensate for it. He was no longer in his prime. And he knew it. Everybody that knows the sport knows it. Cuz it's really not that hard to understand. The fact that your struggling to grasp it really doesn't surprise me.

These examples are utterly pitiful.

George Foreman was 45 when he fought Moorer. He had previously spent TEN years RETIRED. He was obviously light-years past his pomp.

Bernard Hopkins was 41 when he fought Tarver. He was coming off back-to-back losses at middleweight after going 10 years unbeaten at the weight.

Barrera was 26 when he fought Morales. After arguably his greatest ever performance, he fought a further THREE times that year before going on to record his most famous wins.

Can you see the difference?

It is utterly pointless to even mention "prime" unless you are referring to a fighters absolute best. Just because you're a little stronger/faster doesn't make you the complete package.

Would the Barrera of 2000 onwards have been hit with a million right-hands from Junior Jones? Of course not. He had learnt from his mistakes and developed into a superior fighter. He would have schooled Poison.

Your argument is this - a younger slightly stronger Barrera is better than the finished article. Complete nonsesne. Fact.

Sorry Fenster but MAB wouldn't of schooled Junior Jones at any point in his career, MAB tried to box cautiously against Junior Jones in there 2nd fight and he still lost.

It wasn't just his right hand it was his piston like jab, that gave MAB alot of problems aswell.

Just because Junior Jones lost to lesser fighters, because he was inconsistent. And sometimes his chin let him down, doesn't mean anything.

Styles makes fights and MAB never did fight another fighter, like Junior Jones. I just don't think he could of ever have beaten Junior Jones at his best.

Especially the Junior Jones who outpointed Orlando Canizales by 8 rounds to 4.

OK maybe not "school" but Barrera had a better chance of beating him. You have just proved it.

1996 Jones destroys Barrera in 5.
1997 Jones wins a close-ish UD.

Can you see Barrera had immediately improved his performance from the first fight? So now imagine the 2000+ Barrera, an even smarter, more experienced well-rounded competitor

[:::PSL:::]

When was Marco's prime?

Prolly during time in between 122 and 126.

[Mattyhitman]

Marco's prime for me would be between 99-2006, this is when he fought, what i would call Live opponents - bar Kennedy and Jones - These for me we the only real opponents he faced before 99, the rest were tomato cans ready for a pasting !

[GAME]

I think it is a bit disrespectful to say that Barrera was only beating tomato cans pre 1999.
Jesse Benavides was a former world champ. So was Kennedy Mckinney. Agaipito Sanchez was another champion he beat and Pacman couldnt beat Sanchez when he fought him. Frankie Toledo was another former world champion so these guys are far from "tomato cans"

I also disagree that Barrera would have never beaten any version of Junior Jones. He lost 1 by DQ and the other a disputed decision. He would have beaten Jones the 2nd time if they had different judges but he was never gonna get the nod over an Amercian in Amercia. We just need look at Castillo vs Floyd 1 to see that Mexicans get no favours in the USA against the home fighter.

[Violent Demise]

I think it is a bit disrespectful to say that Barrera was only beating tomato cans pre 1999.
Jesse Benavides was a former world champ. So was Kennedy Mckinney. Agaipito Sanchez was another champion he beat and Pacman couldnt beat Sanchez when he fought him. Frankie Toledo was another former world champion so these guys are far from "tomato cans"


I also disagree that Barrera would have never beaten any version of Junior Jones. He lost 1 by DQ and the other a disputed decision. He would have beaten Jones the 2nd time if they had different judges but he was never gonna get the nod over an Amercian in Amercia. We just need look at Castillo vs Floyd 1 to see that Mexicans get no favours in the USA against the home fighter.

He doesn't know the names. So there tomato cans to him.

To be sure, when we are talking prime, are we talking about physical or fight prime? Because clearly they are both very different.

For example, since people have mentioned Hopkins, the 28 year old Hopkins that lost to RJJ was in his physical prime but the 36 year old Hopkins against Trinidad was the better fighter overall. Or take Pac as an example, the 25 year old one was physically in his prime but the 30 year old one is much better overall.

So which prime are we talking about? Fight prime or physical prime?

This is like the definition of elite, different meanings to different people.

Prime means best otherwise it's nonsense. It's pointless bringing it up.

Everyone is physically stronger/faster at a certain age. It doesn't mean you have reached your full potential.

In boxing prime is only used in this context - "He was past his prime (best)." "He was yet to reach his prime (best)." "He was at his prime (best)."

That's it.

I was right. You don't know the meaning of the word. Prime means he's at his physical best. He's able to do everything to his fullest capabilities. Once he can't than he's no longer in his prime. It doesn't mean he still can't be a great fighter. A good example would be Bernard Hopkins. Only a moron wold say Hopkins was in his prime when he beat Antonio Tarver and schooled Kelly Pavlik. He was about 8 years out his prime when he fought Pavlik. Nobody considered George Foreman to be in his prime when he KO'ed Michael Moorer. His prime was when he smashed Joe Frazier. Despite the fact he might of been a better fighter when he made his comeback it's idiotic to say he was in his prime. A 40 year old fighter can't be in his prime. Cuz he can't do things as good as he once did. If at all. Going into the Hamed fight Barrera had been in 55 career fights. Included in those fights were the Kennedy Mckinney war, the Junior Jones wars and the Erik Morales war. Those fights took a toll. Barrera lost a little something. It's why he adjusted his style. He had to compensate for it. He was no longer in his prime. And he knew it. Everybody that knows the sport knows it. Cuz it's really not that hard to understand. The fact that your struggling to grasp it really doesn't surprise me.

These examples are utterly pitiful.

George Foreman was 45 when he fought Moorer. He had previously spent TEN years RETIRED. He was obviously light-years past his pomp.

Bernard Hopkins was 41 when he fought Tarver. He was coming off back-to-back losses at middleweight after going 10 years unbeaten at the weight.

Barrera was 26 when he fought Morales. After arguably his greatest ever performance, he fought a further THREE times that year before going on to record his most famous wins.

Can you see the difference?

It is utterly pointless to even mention "prime" unless you are referring to a fighters absolute best. Just because you're a little stronger/faster doesn't make you the complete package.

Would the Barrera of 2000 onwards have been hit with a million right-hands from Junior Jones? Of course not. He had learnt from his mistakes and developed into a superior fighter. He would have schooled Poison.

Your argument is this - a younger slightly stronger Barrera is better than the finished article. Complete nonsesne. Fact.

You show your ignorance yet again. Barrera adjusted his style cuz he had no choice. He couldn't keep the pace he once did. He didn't do it by choice. He did it cuz he was declining. Look at the Marquez fight. Barrera wants to go at his old pace. He wants to attack like the days of old. But he can't. Cuz he's not the same fighter. He tried it in his 3rd fight against Morales and gassed badly. Cuz again, he's not the same fighter. He was no longer in his prime. It's like talking to a brick wall. Actually I take that back. There's no need for me to insult the brick wall. But really it's not that hard to understand. At least it shouldn't be.

[Spicoli]

Multi quote can seriously leave a guys head spinning. Barrera like many older and traveled fighters made adjustments to his style as he aged. Not by choice but by necessity to remain competitive and extend his longevity on a championship level. Is a prime when a guy can soak it up and walk forward or when a guy realizes he cannot...should not and is smart enough to make adjustments? He was a faster stronger fighter in his youth but also less known... much more popular & smarter later. Dont we all think we are? Cook,Salazar,Sanchez,McKinney gave young Barrera some tough times and landed serious shots. Agree with above Barrera faced credible & diverse guys coming up and to dismiss that is overkill. Jimenez,Toledo,Salud,Benavides on the end,Magana we're all good boxers. Personally I think McKinney had much better right hand than Jones and a more assertive younger Barrera soaked them up.

[Fenster]

Multi quote can seriously leave a guys head spinning. Barrera like many older and traveled fighters made adjustments to his style as he aged. Not by choice but by necessity to remain competitive and extend his longevity on a championship level. Is a prime when a guy can soak it up and walk forward or when a guy realizes he cannot...should not and is smart enough to make adjustments? He was a faster stronger fighter in his youth but also less known... much more popular & smarter later. Dont we all think we are? Cook,Salazar,Sanchez,McKinney gave young Barrera some tough times and landed serious shots. Agree with above Barrera faced credible & diverse guys coming up and to dismiss that is overkill. Jimenez,Toledo,Salud,Benavides on the end,Magana we're all good boxers. Personally I think McKinney had much better right hand than Jones and a more assertive younger Barrera soaked them up.

Are you saying Barrera was past his prime when Jones sparked him?

[Spicoli]

Multi quote can seriously leave a guys head spinning. Barrera like many older and traveled fighters made adjustments to his style as he aged. Not by choice but by necessity to remain competitive and extend his longevity on a championship level. Is a prime when a guy can soak it up and walk forward or when a guy realizes he cannot...should not and is smart enough to make adjustments? He was a faster stronger fighter in his youth but also less known... much more popular & smarter later. Dont we all think we are? Cook,Salazar,Sanchez,McKinney gave young Barrera some tough times and landed serious shots. Agree with above Barrera faced credible & diverse guys coming up and to dismiss that is overkill. Jimenez,Toledo,Salud,Benavides on the end,Magana we're all good boxers. Personally I think McKinney had much better right hand than Jones and a more assertive younger Barrera soaked them up.

Are you saying Barrera was past his prime when Jones sparked him?

Talk about late..slept on that,my bad. Id say no but much closer to 'prime' vs Jones than when he scolded Hamed. Still amazes me that Barrera could not get to Jones with power who I dont think hit a sharp with right nor soaked up punsihment like McKinney could. He def changed tactics in 2nd with Jones and had him taking it.

[Fenster]

Multi quote can seriously leave a guys head spinning. Barrera like many older and traveled fighters made adjustments to his style as he aged. Not by choice but by necessity to remain competitive and extend his longevity on a championship level. Is a prime when a guy can soak it up and walk forward or when a guy realizes he cannot...should not and is smart enough to make adjustments? He was a faster stronger fighter in his youth but also less known... much more popular & smarter later. Dont we all think we are? Cook,Salazar,Sanchez,McKinney gave young Barrera some tough times and landed serious shots. Agree with above Barrera faced credible & diverse guys coming up and to dismiss that is overkill. Jimenez,Toledo,Salud,Benavides on the end,Magana we're all good boxers. Personally I think McKinney had much better right hand than Jones and a more assertive younger Barrera soaked them up.

Are you saying Barrera was past his prime when Jones sparked him?

Talk about late..slept on that,my bad. Id say no but much closer to 'prime' vs Jones than when he scolded Hamed. Still amazes me that Barrera could not get to Jones with power who I dont think hit a sharp with right nor soaked up punsihment like McKinney could. He def changed tactics in 2nd with Jones and had him taking it.

I watched Barrera-Jones 2 (in full for the first time) during this debate and thought Barrera won that fight. He was very unlucky the judges saw it for Poison. I think Barrera struggles when fighters can match/better his speed - Jones, Pac.

What I found most interesting though was Barrera showed the "counter punching" style he would later almost permanently adopt. He definitely improved as fighter - IMO.

[Fenster]

To be sure, when we are talking prime, are we talking about physical or fight prime? Because clearly they are both very different.

For example, since people have mentioned Hopkins, the 28 year old Hopkins that lost to RJJ was in his physical prime but the 36 year old Hopkins against Trinidad was the better fighter overall. Or take Pac as an example, the 25 year old one was physically in his prime but the 30 year old one is much better overall.

So which prime are we talking about? Fight prime or physical prime?

This is like the definition of elite, different meanings to different people.

Prime means best otherwise it's nonsense. It's pointless bringing it up.

Everyone is physically stronger/faster at a certain age. It doesn't mean you have reached your full potential.

In boxing prime is only used in this context - "He was past his prime (best)." "He was yet to reach his prime (best)." "He was at his prime (best)."

That's it.

I was right. You don't know the meaning of the word. Prime means he's at his physical best. He's able to do everything to his fullest capabilities. Once he can't than he's no longer in his prime. It doesn't mean he still can't be a great fighter. A good example would be Bernard Hopkins. Only a moron wold say Hopkins was in his prime when he beat Antonio Tarver and schooled Kelly Pavlik. He was about 8 years out his prime when he fought Pavlik. Nobody considered George Foreman to be in his prime when he KO'ed Michael Moorer. His prime was when he smashed Joe Frazier. Despite the fact he might of been a better fighter when he made his comeback it's idiotic to say he was in his prime. A 40 year old fighter can't be in his prime. Cuz he can't do things as good as he once did. If at all. Going into the Hamed fight Barrera had been in 55 career fights. Included in those fights were the Kennedy Mckinney war, the Junior Jones wars and the Erik Morales war. Those fights took a toll. Barrera lost a little something. It's why he adjusted his style. He had to compensate for it. He was no longer in his prime. And he knew it. Everybody that knows the sport knows it. Cuz it's really not that hard to understand. The fact that your struggling to grasp it really doesn't surprise me.

These examples are utterly pitiful.

George Foreman was 45 when he fought Moorer. He had previously spent TEN years RETIRED. He was obviously light-years past his pomp.

Bernard Hopkins was 41 when he fought Tarver. He was coming off back-to-back losses at middleweight after going 10 years unbeaten at the weight.

Barrera was 26 when he fought Morales. After arguably his greatest ever performance, he fought a further THREE times that year before going on to record his most famous wins.

Can you see the difference?

It is utterly pointless to even mention "prime" unless you are referring to a fighters absolute best. Just because you're a little stronger/faster doesn't make you the complete package.

Would the Barrera of 2000 onwards have been hit with a million right-hands from Junior Jones? Of course not. He had learnt from his mistakes and developed into a superior fighter. He would have schooled Poison.

Your argument is this - a younger slightly stronger Barrera is better than the finished article. Complete nonsesne. Fact.

You show your ignorance yet again. Barrera adjusted his style cuz he had no choice. He couldn't keep the pace he once did. He didn't do it by choice. He did it cuz he was declining. Look at the Marquez fight. Barrera wants to go at his old pace. He wants to attack like the days of old. But he can't. Cuz he's not the same fighter. He tried it in his 3rd fight against Morales and gassed badly. Cuz again, he's not the same fighter. He was no longer in his prime. It's like talking to a brick wall. Actually I take that back. There's no need for me to insult the brick wall. But really it's not that hard to understand. At least it shouldn't be.

Barrera was past his best when he fought Marquez.

You're not talking to a brick wall. I know exactly what you're saying.

The difference is - your thought process is very limited. I accept Barrera may have been physically stonger when younger but that doesn't mean better overall. The adjustments arguably improved him.